*sigh*

No, the matter is composed of energy, it is fundamentally energy, but the matter is transformed into energy, therefore the matter is gone, but the energy that composed it is still there. In any case, the energy does not disappear.

Not even your own site agrees with you.

"The other reason is that when a particle annihilates with its antiparticle, both disappear, leaving all of the energy available for making new and interesting stuff."

I saw that, what my point is is that the site says it disappears, despite that it leaves energy, what does disappear is the particle that is classified as energy as well.
http://www.inlightimes.com/archives/2001/05/5-2.htm
And did you even read the other sites I posted? What I said was correct about it disappearing.
It's in your face, how can you disagree with what those Japanese scientists say? You ignore that.

Yes, the particle is disappeared because the energy that comprosed it is now released. You were claiming the energy disappears too though.



Which other site?

Depends on the formula. Finally, you are saying the particles disappeared!! Which they do, and are classified as energy.
energy: Physics. The capacity of a physical system to do work.
The dark matter one.
So you admit that you did misunderstand me?

I've claimed the particles disappeared since the beginning, they disappear because they are annihilated and their energy is released. THe energy, however, doesnt disappear.

Dark matter is matter. Neutrinos are dark matter. If the neutrinos disappear, then that which is classified as energy disappears, according to that Japanese site.

We are getting off-topic to the origin of the Universe, etc., because this was just originally a question of mine that you misunderstood. For the last time, can you either PM me or get back on topic of what created life???

But that is not a matter/antimatter reaction!

Technically since it is matter, it is, according to Japanese research.
edit:read my above post.

Re read the research. THey're talking about neutrinos randomly disappearing and appearing, not antimatter and matter reactions.

Stellar, I read the site, and I just gave you my explanation of what neutrinos are, so it is related.
edit:read post 156.
edit:Are you not reading my posts? Another thing, I said we need to get back on to the subject of the original post.

How is it related? Its talking about them disappearing and appearing at random times, not when comming in contact with its antimatter equivalent!

It is related because it is considered dark matter. And when it comes into contact it still disappears, so the energy "disappears"

What are you talking about, the website simply says that neutrinos appear and disappear at random moments sometimes, and darkmatter isnt antimatter.

When it collides with protons for example, they have been known to still disappear in the study. They are doing these studies perhaps as we speak.
Darkmatter is matter, stellar.

I know its matter, but a different type of matter. Whats your point though? Those arent matter and antimatter reactions.

So if dark matter disappears, matter disappears. This includes when they collide with each other. Get it?

Can we finally get back on topic?

So why did you change the subject from matter and antimatter reactions to this?

Because when neutrinos collide they still disappear, and I was showing you that neutrinos are dark matter and dark matter is matter, so the same applies.

And speaking of subject, I'd really like to discuss life and the original post.

When neutrinos collide with what? Why did you suddenly switch from matter/antimatter to matter/darkmatter?

Protons, gluons(?), themselves, everything. They disappear randomly and when colliding, but the point is that they still disappear. I just told you dark matter is matter so the same applies.

Hey you two!

This is all very interesting and all, but a bit off topic! Can we get back to topic?

Thanks,

Amy

^Thank you. If we don't get back on topic there's no point in me enjoying this thread.
edit: I'll be back soon, have to go.

But the point is that during a matter/ anti matter reaction, the energy doesnt disappear.

Ok...lets

Lets consider the big bang theory.
many consider the big bang to be the "beginning", the start of something from nothing, or Godhead.
But----could not the Big Bang is less a starting point of thermodynamic instability?
Is there not room for a more subtle and more complex understanding of the cosmic event?
If we were to look at the evolution of the universe, it could be understood in 4 principal changes
1) emptiness
2.) formation
3.) abiding
4.) destruction

Could not the event we call the BIG BANG actually have been only a point where the last universe destructed and ours started?

The universe is in a constant state of coming into being and passing away.
This should show that the universe has no absolute beginning.
If this is the case then was there one big bang or many?
Is there one universe or many?
Is the universe finite or infinite.
We continually look only at the 4 elements but are we missing a 5th, being space?
Are the four elements potentialities and constituents of aggregated matter?
Space with it's empty particles, is the basis for the whole process.
We also seem to be discussing the origins of the universe as though it consists only of matter and energy.

Since my experience, there is the critical issue of consciousness.
During my experience I felt the sense that everything was as it was supposed to be.
A feeling that has bothered me since I experienced it, because i could not identify exactly what I was feeling.
Now I do understand, the feeling was one of causality.
I felt karma and knew that all actions led up to what I was witnessing as they should have.
The couple on the park bench had met, which allowed them to have that moment I witnessed on the park bench.
All actions that led up to that moment I witnessed them were the result of past thoughts that turned into actions of that past moment, and I was witness to the unfolding of many many past thoughts and actions(moments) coming togeather to form a new moment.
I doubt many here will understand that, but I am a very excited camper right now.
To me, the unfolding of the universe is a matter of the natural law everyone was engaging in that moment, which is the natural process of cause and effect which naturally unfolds.
WAHOO!
Ok, someone come and burst my bubble

NOOO, don't burst the bubble!!!

That is why I said this, you gave me the idea, Turtle...

Can we describe what consciousness actually is?

Apparently you haven't taken college physics. That which disappears is classified as energy.
http://www.law-of-attraction-info.com/quantumphysics.html
After you take all your core classes, maybe then we can continue this discussion.

Science hasn't a clue, so it will be difficult.
But I am a feverent believer in that this holds the key to understanding.
I loved your post.
I am currently reading the Dali Lama new book --"The Convergence of Science and Spirituality".
There is a whole section on consciousness.
A worthwhile buy if you have an interest in this area.
It is up to date on the latest scientific studies.
Unless we have a Paradigm Shift in the attitudes of scientists, that starts to take into account individual experiencers, it may be a long process.
Hence, my duty and mission.

OMG

Its said that the particles are annihilated and the energy is released, therefor the particles have "disappeared" much to the same sense as water "disappearing" during electrolyses. The components of water, however, are still there. Apparently you're willing to ignore all of physics that says that when the particles are annihilated, the energy is released, and argue some stupid little idea that is backed up by only your insignificant flawed opinion that when people say the particles are annihilated, physics and the scientists mean that the energy that composed those particles is not gone, but is simply released.

"They annihilate each other completely and the resultant energy is high end gamma ray radiation."

Clear enough for you? Physics says that the energy is released during the matter antimatter reaction. What degree do you have that challenges all of physics? The matter is converted into energy. Matter, for it to be matter, must have mass and must occupy space. Energy does not. In the reaction, the matter is converted to energy (therefore no more mass) and thats why it is said the matter "disappears" or is annihilated, yet the energy that composed those particles still exists.



And what part of that highly biased website did you want me to focus on?



Quite ironic comming from you, considering that we wouldnt be having this argument in the first place if you knew anything about what you're talking about.

Phew, I'm glad I know nothing about all that stuff...

I'm afraid Stellar is right. Antimatter - matter (ie. positron - electron) collisions do not yield nothing. There is energy released. Sometimes there are even intermediary particles with very short lifetimes created that quickly decay into radiation.

But back on the subject of...

...well, I don't entertain the thought of God very well so I won't and I aplogize in advance that I haven't read all of the posts in this thread so if anyone has brought this up - kudos to you

However, there is something that has been bugging me for some time and may very well bear the beginnings of an answer (albeit very coarse and basic). Consider gravity as follows...an object rests on the surface of earth, it clearly exerts forces (em forces) atom against atom (over distances of course), these forces are being matched (by the repelling surface) - so the object is stationary (ie cannot merge with the surface or sink through). Now where does all this energy come from? Physicists would say graviton exchange, but this is not good enough because one object is expending energy as it pushes down and the surface is expending energy as it pushes up - they do not cancel out. Other physicists would say since nothing has moved no energy is being expended. What the? Also not good enough since I can push against a wall (that will not move) and use energy (and if I had the means to do so I could do it for infinity) and yet the wall would (in theory) keep pushing back so it doesn't move. Does the wall have some infinite reserve? So if anyone can enlighten how this something is coming from nothing is possible please do - other than the following. I am pretty certain (and as Einstein would have it) there is no energy being expended - it only seems like there is because of space-time curvature, so, and this is where it is leading to, perhaps all of the energy in the universe follows the same 'weird' existence - it is merely a space-time curvature but it just does not seem like it on the macroscopic level. Energy may not really exist it just seem like it in our 3d existence that is full of space-time curvature EVEN ON ATOMIC LEVELS.

Just another *coal* on the *fire*

Cheers

Clearly, if one's consciousness is able to separate from the physical organism, as NDE's seem to imply, then the import suggests that consciousness is not generated by the brain, but arises from an interaction (a correspondence) with it from some other structure. That 'other' structure I assumed - for my own purposes - was what I considered to be the soul. Thus, from a philosophical point-of-view, I was approaching the mind/body problem from a 'dualistic' angle, but really, I was not concerned with which philosophical argument was the correct one, I just wanted to know, or to gain some understanding on the issue.

Science does not view individual NDE's such as mine with any regard.
The problamatic assumptions of each experiencer are based on their own conditioning during upbringing.
It has taken me over 5 years to push aside this conditioning to come to a broader understanding mainly due to my approach of having an open mind about the subject.

I read this analogy in another forum from Glen Wensley which puts into words my thoughts on this subject better than I ever could.
He states:

"The 'dying brain' hypothesis, although a non-conclusive attempt to explain the NDE event, is to my mind a contributor to the actual event itself. I say this from the standpoint that the physical organism must reach a particular level of 'crisis' before it 'gives up the ghost', so to speak. So the death (or shutdown) of the brain is one of the elements that helps to release the consciousness. Throughout life, the permanent part of us - the soul, if you will accept that term - is in constant correspondence with the physical organism, not just by interfacing with the brain, but with the body as a whole. It is this constant correspondence that anchours the soul to the body and brain throughout physical life, but when there is an interruption to the correspondence, either temporary or permanently, it acts as a release mechanism for the structure that is the soul.

The soul is what is truly conscious, interpenetrating the very fabric of the physical body, but on a higher vibrational wavelength. I feel that the correspondence between the structure of the soul and the physical organism in which it abides, ocurrs at the sub-quantum level via a mechanism that allows for the swapping of energy units in the form of energy waves. Think of two magnetic fields interacting, not the magnets themselves, just their fields; and you will see how I am thinking of the correspondence mechanism.

So, any interruption to this correspondence, will effect a release for the soul from the physical organism. Anoxia - lack of oxygen - is just simply part of the brain's death, leading to the trigger of the soul's release. So, someone suffering a cardiac arrest during a operation, does not die instantly, but slowly and gradually over a minute or so. If we allow for the intake of oxygen and the compression of the chest to pump blood to the brain during the resuscitation, we would assume under this argument (the dying brain) that the NDE event would occurr in staggered flashes, and not in one continuous scene as reported (the flashes appearing at the same rate as the compression of the chest). Beside all this hypothesising, I feel the Dutch study has adequately disposed of this argument.

Once the soul is released from the physical body, it would not be unreasonable to accept that it will still be vibrating at a near-enough energy resonance that allows it a continued (but temporary) correspondence with the earthly environment, all be it in a more perceptive and wider conscious resonance, but it cannot stay attuned to this level for long, and thus it begins a re-polarisation to its whole internal energy resonance. At this point, the soul encounters the 'tunnel'. In film terms, this is the 'fade out' to the next scene, and the rest of the NDE event if the experient is drawn deeper into it.

I feel we cannot dismiss the dying brain hypothesis, because it actually plays a part in triggering the NDE event. I do feel, though, that we can dismiss certain interpretations of it. It is not the cause of the event, per se, just one of the elements that help to trigger it."

Well, the most honest thing to say is; we really don't know sh**

Yes I tend to agree with you, there!!

Even debating endlessly about matter and antimatter proves that we are all just trying to find 'theories' and in the end we can never ever prove how the universe was created but we can only really speculate about it.

Hello! Tell me more about this big bang thing and vibrations i find subject facinating! i love it when someone mentions big bangs they are my most beautiful experience when something frightens me! Please, Please, tell me more! Do the big bangs also happen in the infinately small too? I dying to know! Do you think that God is in us? Is it when a rainstorm when a big bang happens? We had a big rain and noise here in Sweden last week, and i swear i see something in sky like a disc or somethjng and it was flash like lightning and then it gone could it have gone to make new planets?

very happy im finding you to give answers i needed tell more!

In the beginning . . . don't most of us make a big assumpstion here? In the beginning of what? Earthly time? The "big experiment" of life? We aren't told.

Right, they "disappear" and I speculated that the matter goes to another part of the universe.
This was recently discovered at CERN that the neutrinos disappear and the neutrinos have energy.

Also remember, stellar that you said it was not energy that "disappeared"
You are challenging Stephen Hawking by saying that since neutrinos have energy, which I have been saying all along.

I never disagreed with that. Stellar disagreed that the particles were not classified as energy, which they are. That is what was being discussed.
edit:Japan is ahead of the rest of the world in technology and these particles have been known to disappear. End of story.

Let's hope that ties that argument up!!

So energy is consciousness? Therefore what I mentioned about the energy of the universe being conscious could still be a possibility.

Has anyone heard of the photoelectric effect?
What interferes with a single photon?
It has to be other photons. But where are the interfering photons? The single photon interference implies that they are in other universes that interfere with ours. Neils Bohr once said that, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory does not understand it."
There's a lot more to this universe than we see.

I totally agree with you.

I think that if we wanted to find the origins of the Universe, we also have to look at the remnants of the Universe, like quantum foam, for example. There were irregularities in the beginning of the universe, and there are some we see today as well.

They dont though. In a matter/antimatter reaction, the matter is converted to energy.



No, you werent. You were talking about matter/antimatter reactions and said that there is no energy released. THAT is challenging all of physics. You werent talking about neutrinos and partices randomly disappearing until you started changing the subject because you realised you were wrong.



Sure you did.

"And particles are matter. And matter is energy, so the energy "disappears""

"Yes, they cancel eachother out. The entire energy "disappears""

You said these things concerning matter/antimatter equations of equal mass, and said that the energy disappears and said the only explenation is that it goes to another part of the universe, which it doesnt.




I never disagreed with that. I even said repeatedly that particles are composed of energy. That was the basis of my whole argument on where the energy that is released during a matter/antimatter reaction comes from!



They're not talking about matter/antimatter reactions there though. End of story.

Stellar, for the last time, neutrinos are matter, that is not changing the subject. the particles "disappear", therefore the energy disappears, and you were saying that it did not.

Also, if it goes into another part of the universe, it does NOT defy physics at all. How many times do I have to say that? Read my post on the photoelectric effect. Quantum mechanics is a lot stranger than that, trust me. Even physicists that won Nobel Prizes claimed they did not understand it. The particles are weird and contradictory, that's a fact. They are studying this at CERN. There's a lot more to this universe than what we see.
edit:The particles of equal mass release nothing in this universe, but I speculate the energy goes into another part of the universe. And its possible, considering the photoelectric effect, that this energy goes into another universe entirely. This in no way violates any law.

Why are you grasping at straws? I'm not arguing that. What I am saying is that neutrinos disappearing outside of matter/antimatter reactions is not what the initial argument was about, nor has it anything to do with matter/antimatter reactions!

The whole thing was about you saying the energy disappears in a balanced matter/antimatter reaction. That is not true. You changed the subject and started chanting about neutrinos for no reason, thats not what we were talking about.



I know quite well that it doesnt. But like I said, you implied that the energy during a matter/antimatter reaction "disappears" and the only explenation for that disappearence which doesnt defy physics is that it goes to another part of the universe. The fact is, the energy doesnt go into another part of the universe and it doesnt defy physics, because the energy in a matter/antimatter reaction doesnt disappear at all. It is released as a result of the reaction.



None. That has no bearing on anything.



Why should I trust you on anything regarding physics? You dont seem to have a comprehension of it, and are too pig headed to verify what you're talking about before arguing about it, and then when you realise you were wrong you change tunes and act as if you were talking about neutrino oscillation the whole time.



We're not talking about neutrino oscillation at all though!



No... matter and antimatter particles of equal mass, when comming in contact, release their energy in this universe.